Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2002 12:32:48 -0400
From: Margaret Wasserman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| It is possible that we could do a combined version of these
| two choices:
|
| - The IPv6 WG does the minimal updates to make the
| current IPv4 MIBs version-independent.
| - State-of-the-art MIBs are developed in other areas
| and groups, as appropriate.
|
| What do you folks think?
Yes, that. We should make sure that there are IPv6 (or better, address
independent) MIBs that at least offer the same functionality as the current
IPv4 MIBs.
At the same time, the NM people, transport NM people, or whoever, can go
on developing their next and greatest MIB, that works better than we
currently have, etc. Any such MIB should be address independent now
just on general principle.
The only thing to be aware of, is that we (IPv6) must avoid getting upset
if we do lots of work to update some particular MIB, and then just before
we're finished, a new better version emerges from elsewhere (which is
intended to deprecate some current v4 only MIB). If that happens, we
should just junk whatever we have done, and accept the newer one. If we
get finished first, then when a newer one emerges, it can just deprecate
our new stuff, as well as the old v4 only stuff.
Note that this "do both" is exactly equivalent, to us, to just doing (1)
from your two reasonable choices, while at the same time not standing in
the way of anyone, from elsewhere, who wants to do (2) (which is obviously
the better result - but only if it is actually achieved).
kre
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
